HPH2/Cohen Claimform - old Barclay Partner finance Loan Debt

[Guyman]

Good morning,

 

Do you think that now the documents have been filed I have a case to defend or is it just a case of negotiating with the claimant solicitors?

 

C

[AndyOrch]

Not sure if you have a defence but you need to address the figures they are trying to claim.

 

This claim is for the sum of £8078.95 in respect of monies owing under a Agreement with the account no......... pursuant to the consumer crediticon Act 1974 (CCA).

The debt was legally assigned by Barclays Bank Plc (Ex Barclays) to the Claimant and notice has been served. The Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Agreement. A Default notice has been served upon the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA.

The Claimant claims

1. The sum of £ 8076.95

 

 

-£2

 

From their Response.

 

3. Fixed Commencement Fees £410. (should be worded as Fixed Commencement Costs...not fees)

 

New Amount claimed = £8586.95

 

When defendant only liable for fixed commencement costs

 

CPR 45.3 Where –

 

(a) the only claim is for a specified sum of money; and

 

(b) the defendant pays the money claimed within 14 days after being served with the particulars of claim, together with the fixed commencement costs stated in the claim form,

 

the defendant is not liable for any further costs unless the court orders otherwise.

 

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part45-fixed-costs#rule45.2

 

As its not stated in the particulars of claim...your not liable.......they are trying to add on another £410....in Small Claims Track...and even that figure is wrong should be £100.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

heck of a lot of default sum fees £22.50 each.

if you were to negotiate a settlement

i'd want those removed too

 

plus interesting to see no interest has been charged since 2010....

[theoldrouge]

Yes but they are not party to the agreement...simply arranged it between you and Barclays Bank Plc

 

As is the case currently before the UTT

 

However the broker in the case Azure Malta were unauthorised or licensed by BPF

 

Originally the FCA were asked to validate the agreements and did so

 

Following complaints the FCA consider that the agreements caused detriment to the consumer,

and are petitioning the UTT to cancel the validation

 

Pending judgement,

lawyers for BPF have agreed not to proceed with any action against those in default of the Azure agreements

 

In view of the apparent lack of a defence I would certainly want to check that Sunterra were indeed authorised to broker the credit

 

For the future, when the claim is dealt with, Silverpoint, Sunterra (Diamond) etc are losing on a daily basis in the Tenerife courts for breaches of Spanish Timeshare Law

[Guyman]

Evening,

 

Is there an easy way to find out if Sunterra/Diamond Resorts were licensed to advise on finance products.

 

Been looking on internet for some time and do not seem to able to see anything.

 

This does date back to 2006.

 

The last order allowed me 21 days to amend my defence after they submitted the documents. Shall I leave it be, or should I amend to include them being out of time for filing the documents?

 

Colin

[AndyOrch]

You can introduce it at witness statement stage.

[theoldrouge]

Evening,

 

Is there an easy way to find out if Sunterra/Diamond Resorts were licensed to advise on finance products.

 

Been looking on internet for some time and do not seem to able to see anything.

 

This does date back to 2006.

 

 

Colin

 

 

Worth email to BPF and ask them to confirm in writing whether or not Sunterra authorised/ licensed to broker credit for BPF

at time of signing agreement

[theoldrouge]

Below is the decision of the UTT

Barclays obviously had a lax policy in dealing with unauthorised brokers

In addition the court accepted that consumer detriment was caused

and the case has been returned to the FCA to review its decision to

validate the agreements

The judgment contains a lot of information useful to yourself

if Sunterra Tenerife Sales were not authorised, regarding regulations

at the time of sale to you 2008, under s149 CCA 1974, which would have

applied at that time

 

 

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5b619143ed915d4b53bfc5e4/PLAXEDES_CHICKOMBE_AND_44_OTHERS_v_FCA___BPF.pdf

[theoldrouge]

The judge basically found detriment to the consumer was caused by

 

Clients were not given sufficient information as to the terms and conditions of the loan agreement required by law;

There were no major credit checks made as to the affordability of the repayments such as income versus outgoings reports;

The length of the loan agreements were not explained, with client under the impression that they were for two years;

Clients were pressured into signing these agreements;

False representations were made to clients relating to the financial impact of regulated agreements;

Clients were subject to long high pressure sales tactics to purchase the timeshares;

Clients were sold timeshares which were not appropriate for them;

Vulnerable consumers were treated inappropriately;

Concerns about commission arrangements and disclosure thereof.

 

This will certainly bring into question any timeshare based loan through a broker being authorised or not

issued by BPF